This complaint directly complements the Commission’s own enforcement action announced on 9 December 2025. It then confirmed that it had “opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Google has breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as content uploaded on the online video-sharing platform YouTube, for artificial intelligence (AI) purposes,” a timely investigation which the EPC strongly welcomes.
The complaint argues that Google is using publishers’ journalistic content without authorisation, without effective opt-out mechanisms, and without fair remuneration, while at the same time displacing traffic, audiences, and revenues that are essential to the sustainability of professional journalism. By embedding AI-generated summaries and chatbot-style responses directly into its dominant search interface, Google has transformed Search from a referral service into an answer engine that substitutes original publisher content and retains users within Google’s own ecosystem. Google relies on publishers’ high-quality journalistic content as a critical input for AI training, retrieval augmented generation, and output generation. Professionally produced news and editorial content is particularly valuable to AI systems because it is accurate, current, well-structured, and requires minimal cleaning.
Christian Van Thillo, Chairman of the European Publishers Council, said:
“This complaint is not about resisting innovation or artificial intelligence. It is about stopping a dominant gatekeeper from using its market power to take publishers’ content without consent, without fair compensation, and without giving publishers any realistic way to protect their journalism. AI Overviews and AI Mode fundamentally undermine the economic compact that has sustained the open web.”
He added:
“If these practices continue, the damage will be structural and irreversible. No amount of money can restore lost audiences, weakened brand relationships, or eroded reader trust once publishers are disintermediated. Effective competition, media pluralism, and democratic discourse, all objectives rightly at the heart of the European Democracy Shield, depend on timely and decisive enforcement.”
The EPC warns that, in the absence of intervention, smaller, regional, and specialist publishers will be the first to exit the market, leading to a less diverse and less resilient information ecosystem. This outcome would sit uneasily with the European Commission’s flagship European Democracy Shield, which recognises the central role of independent, professional journalism in safeguarding democratic resilience. Over time, the erosion of the economic base of journalism would also degrade the quality and reliability of AI-generated information services, which depend on a continuous supply of professionally produced journalism.
While other AI providers have entered into licensing agreements with some publishers for the use of journalistic content, Google has largely avoided doing so. Instead, it relies on its control of search to secure ongoing access to content without payment, thereby distorting competition and undermining the emergence of a functioning licensing market for AI uses of copyrighted works.
As explained in the complaint, publishers are confronted with an untenable choice. To remain visible on Google Search, they must accept that their content is crawled, reproduced, and repurposed for Google’s AI features. The technical controls cited by Google do not offer meaningful protection. In practice, opting out of AI use entails a loss of search visibility that most publishers cannot afford.
The complaint further explains that this conduct imposes unfair trading conditions on publishers as unavoidable trading partners and prevents the development of a functioning licensing market for the use of journalistic content in AI training, grounding, and output generation.
The complaint also submits that Google’s practices involve systematic breaches of EU copyright law, including publishers’ neighbouring right under the DSM Copyright Directive, and that such regulatory non-compliance constitutes a relevant indicator of exploitative abuse under EU competition law.
The complaint calls on the European Commission to adopt remedies capable of restoring competitive conditions, including meaningful publisher control over the use of their content for AI purposes, transparency regarding content usage and impact, and a fair licensing and remuneration framework that reflects the scale and value of publishers’ content.
ENDS
For further information, please contact Angela Mills Wade, Executive Director of the European Publishers Council, at angela.mills-wade@epceurope.eu, or Heidi Lambert at heidilambert@hlcltd.co.uk
FAQs on the EPC complaint against Google over AI Overviews and AI Mode
What is the European Publishers Council complaining about?
The EPC has filed a formal antitrust complaint alleging that Google is abusing its dominant position in search by deploying AI Overviews and AI Mode in a way that uses publishers’ journalistic content without authorisation, without effective control, and without fair remuneration. At the same time, these AI features substitute publishers’ content, displace traffic and audiences, and undermine the economic sustainability of professional journalism.
Why is this a competition law case rather than a copyright dispute?
While copyright is central to the facts, the core problem is competition. Google is an unavoidable trading partner because of its dominance in general search. It uses that position to impose conditions under which publishers must accept the use of their content for AI purposes in order to remain visible. Copyright law alone cannot address this coercive imbalance or restore competitive conditions.
What exactly are AI Overviews and AI Mode, and why do they matter?
AI Overviews and AI Mode embed AI-generated summaries and chatbot-style answers directly into Google Search. Rather than directing users to original sources, these tools synthesise publishers’ content and present it as a complete response within Google’s own interface. This marks a structural shift from search as a referral service to search as an answer engine that substitutes original content.
Is Google really using publishers’ content, or merely summarising public information?
Google’s AI features rely on publishers’ content for AI training, grounding, and output generation. The systems reproduce, transform, and repurpose journalistic works to generate responses that directly compete with publishers’ own content. This is not incidental reference, it is systematic use at scale.
Can publishers opt out if they do not want their content used for AI?
There is no meaningful opt-out. The technical tools cited by Google either do not prevent AI use or require publishers to accept severe losses in search visibility. In practice, opting out of AI means opting out of the market. A choice between exploitation and invisibility is not a genuine choice.
Does Google send publishers more traffic through AI Overviews?
Independent evidence and publisher data show the opposite. AI Overviews significantly reduce click-throughs by answering queries directly on the top of the search results page. This substitutes publisher content rather than referring users to it. Traffic lost in this way cannot be replaced.
Are publishers already being compensated through partnerships with Google?
There is no comprehensive or transparent licensing framework covering Google’s AI uses of publishers’ content. Limited commercial arrangements do not reflect the scale of use or compensate for lost traffic, audiences, and revenue.
Why does uniform treatment not make Google’s conduct fair?
Uniform conditions can still be abusive when imposed by a dominant undertaking. Publishers cannot realistically negotiate or refuse the terms without suffering serious commercial harm. Competition law exists precisely to address this kind of dependency.
Is this simply the latest evolution of search technology?
No. AI Overviews and AI Mode represent a qualitative change. Search no longer primarily facilitates discovery of original sources. It now delivers AI-generated answers that disintermediate publishers, weaken brand recognition, and crucially erode the economic foundation of journalism.
Do citations and links in AI Overviews solve the problem?
No. Selective and discretionary citations do not restore lost traffic or audience relationships as users don’t click through. The comprehensive nature of the AI Overviews is conditioning users to remain on Google. Publishers cannot verify when their content is used, how it is used, or challenge unauthorised exploitation.
Is the EPC opposed to artificial intelligence or innovation?
No. Publishers are already among the most active and responsible adopters of AI, using it across newsrooms, production, verification, and accessibility. What they oppose is the use of dominant market power to appropriate publishers’ content without consent, control, or fair remuneration. Sustainable AI depends on sustainable journalism.
Why are smaller and regional publishers particularly affected?
Smaller, regional, and specialist publishers are most dependent on search referral traffic and have the least bargaining power. They are therefore the first to exit the market when traffic and revenues are displaced. This leads to reduced media diversity and a weaker information ecosystem.
What does this mean for users?
Professional journalism provides reliable, fact-checked information. If publishers are weakened or forced out of the market, the quality and reliability of information available to users declines. AI systems themselves depend on high-quality journalistic content, and undermining its economic base ultimately degrades AI outputs.
Can financial compensation alone fix the problem?
No. Once publishers are disintermediated, audiences lost, and brand relationships weakened, competitive conditions cannot be restored through payments after the fact. Remedies must restore control, visibility, and fair market conditions.
What remedies is the EPC asking the Commission to consider?
The EPC is calling for remedies capable of restoring competition, including meaningful publisher control over AI use, transparency on how content is used and its impact, and a fair licensing and remuneration framework that reflects the scale and value of publishers’ content.
[i] Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.